Paroling Authority Self-Assessment Toolkit

Practice Target 3:

Maintain meaningful partnerships with institutional corrections and community supervision (and others) to encourage a seamless transition process and the availability of sound, evidence-based programs.

Although paroling authorities are typically independent from those agencies that are responsible for correctional institutions and those responsible for post-release supervision, assuring some coherence in the transition and release process heightens the ability to assure successful outcomes. The National Institute of Corrections Transition from Prison to the Community Initiative has documented this fact and has been working with states across the country to build sound partnerships among these key stakeholders. Research on effective supervision clearly identifies the period immediately following release from prison as a particularly high risk time for offenders. In particular, released prisoners with lengthy criminal records who have been to prison several times before have very high recidivism rates; over 80 percent are rearrested within three years of release from prison9. The Association for Paroling Authorities, International has articulated as a standard for boards that they shall: "strive to enhance opportunities for offender success by collaborating with partners both within and outside of the criminal justice system, supporting the supervision of offenders in their communities, employing informal social controls, and enabling offenders to meaningfully participate in the supervision process."

Using the assessment scale below, select a response to each question that (in your judgment) best reflects how fully your state and your board currently implement this aspect of the practice target under consideration. After clicking the “submit” button at the end of this section, you can view and print a summary of your responses that you can then use to guide a discussion with your fellow board members.

Does your board participate on established committees to address cross agency issues of concern?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Does your board have interagency agreements in place that strengthen collaboration and coordination with key partner agencies and organizations?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Does your board work with institutional partners to develop a strategy to target available risk reduction interventions to offenders according to their assessed levels of risk and criminogenic need?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Have you developed working agreements with institutional corrections toward the goal of housing offenders in locations that permit access to interventions designed to address an offender's specific criminogenic needs?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant
Progress Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Does your board work with correctional partners in a timely way in order to reduce risk and allow for transition to the community at the earliest time commensurate with desert and risk?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Have you developed genuine working relationships with supervision agencies to assure aftercare with appropriate interventions for medium and high risk offenders in the community--particularly in the first weeks and months of supervision?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Does your board support the establishment (and expansion) of evidence-based institutional and community programs by educating themselves on the principles of evidence-based practice and on what the research tells us about what interventions work with what types of offenders?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Does your board work with its correctional partners to assure the availability of cognitive behavioral programs for medium and high risk offenders?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant
Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Does your board work with its institutional and community partners to time its hearing process so as to eliminate as much delay as possible in considering low risk offenders for release?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Does your board have access to the assessments and case plans developed within correctional institutions?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Does your board have information about what programming is likely to be available to an offender targeted to his criminogenic needs—particularly those offenders assessed at high and medium risk to reoffend?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

Does your board typically limit its expectations for programming to those that directly respond to medium and high risk offenders' assessed criminogenic needs?

No Progress
Toward Implementation

Some Significant Progress
Toward Implementation

Full Implementation

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

In your judgment, how would you characterize your board’s progress in this area, considering the expectations/characteristics outlined above, and the previous discussion?

In your judgment, how would you rate the IMPORTANCE of bringing this practice target to full implementation in order for you to accomplish your goals as a paroling authority? Why?